fer that would increase a person's knowledge and understanding.

Krauthammer's piece on Giuliani was interesting to me because he inadvertently reminded me that any politician's position on abortion is irrelevant "because neither presidents nor legislatures nor referendums decide this issue. Judges do."

Amen, Charlie, you are so right. I have decided to ignore what any presidential candidate's position is on abortion; it does not matter.

Sure, some unrealistic souls think a clever Republican President that nominates a new U. S. Supreme Court justice can carry the day on Roe v. Wade by appointing a real conservative judge.

Those days are long gone. The nominee will never be approved b

It is possible that Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has infuriated his Democratic rivals to the point of distraction. As a good Republican Giuliani should be pro life but he is pro choice.

Being in favor of abortion on demand makes Giuliani more dangerous politically to Democrats than actually wiping out another life so women can retain their right of choice at the expense of their potential progeny. Only Democrats are supposed to be pro choice.

You can imagine the Democrats' extreme agitation and emotional response to Giuliani horning in on their "sacred" territory. I can assure you that the exterminated unborn do not consider abortion sacred at all.

Giuliani is now under searing attack from every Democrat and flaming left-wing Democratic news organization worthy of the name.

I recently read three news stories about Giuliani's candidacy and thought I would tackle some thoughts on Giuliani, politics, politicians, pundits and predators.

My initial interest took flight when reading Charles Krauthammer's recent piece (5-13-07) titled "Giuliani's Abortion Stance Makes Sense".

If you have never read Charlie's stuff, you might want to try him on for size. Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post (not too shabby as former Opera Man Adam Sandler used to say on Saturday Night Live).

The Financial Times named Krauthammer as America's most influential commentator in 2006. I would not go that far because I think Ann Coulter and Dick Morris are in his league in terms of discernment and thought power. Coulter is the best at identifying political posturing, and Morris is the best at identifying political strategy.

I did not purposely go looking for information on Giuliani or any other politician seeking to become the next President of the United States. I generally cannot stand politics or politicians, but more on that later.

I see Krauthammer on television occasionally and marvel at the conversation. Usually he appears with some other famous pundits on a political show and I watch intently as his fellow companions say little as they drone on about a subject. Then Krauthammer starts speaking, and I immediately realize that this is one smart intellect actually saying something that makes eminent sense.

The difference between Krauthammer and the others is the difference between night and day. I generally always agree with Krauthammer and I always respect and admire his ability to defend his point of view. Krauthammer puts together compound and complex sentences flawlessly and is totally on task.

He does not waste time spinning out political fodder like almost every other commentator does. Most commentators are so busy spewing out the typical Republican or Democratic line of crap that they have nothing to offer that would increase a person's knowledge and understanding.

Krauthammer's piece on Giuliani was interesting to me because he inadvertently reminded me that any politician's position on abortion is irrelevant "because neither presidents nor legislatures nor referendums decide this issue. Judges do."

Amen, Charlie, you are so right. I have decided to ignore what any presidential candidate's position is on abortion; it does not matter.

Sure, some unrealistic souls think a clever Republican President that nominates a new U. S. Supreme Court justice can carry the day on Roe v. Wade by appointing a real conservative judge.

Those days are long gone. The nominee will never be approved by

searing attack from every Democrat and flaming left-wing Democratic news organization worthy of the name.

I recently read three news stories about Giuliani's candidacy and thought I would tackle some thoughts on Giuliani, politics, politicians, pundits and predators.

My initial interest took flight when reading Charles Krauthammer's recent piece (5-13-07) titled "Giuliani's Abortion Stance Makes Sense".

If you have never read Charlie's stuff, you might want to try him on for size. Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post (not too shabby as former Opera Man Adam Sandler used to say on Saturday Night Live).

The Financial Times named Krauthammer as America's most influential commentator in 2006. I would not go that far because I think Ann Coulter and Dick Morris are in his league in terms of discernment and thought power. Coulter is the best at identifying political posturing, and Morris is the best at identifying political strategy.

I did not purposely go looking for information on Giuliani or any other politician seeking to become the next President of the United States. I generally cannot stand politics or politicians, but more on that later.

I see Krauthammer on television occasionally and marvel at the conversation. Usually he appears with some other famous pundits on a political show and I watch intently as his fellow companions say little as they drone on about a subject. Then Krauthammer starts speaking, and I immediately realize that this is one smart intellect actually saying something that makes eminent sense.

The difference between Krauthammer and the others is the difference between night and day. I generally always agree with Krauthammer and I always respect and admire his ability to defend his point of view. Krauthammer puts together compound and complex sentences flawlessly and is totally on task.

He does not waste time spinning out political fodder like almost every other commentator does. Most commentators are so busy spewing out the typical Republican or Democratic line of crap that they have nothing to offer that would increase a person's knowledge and understanding.

Krauthammer's piece on Giuliani was interesting to me because he inadvertently reminded me that any politician's position on abortion is irrelevant "because neither presidents nor legislatures nor referendums decide this issue. Judges do."

Amen, Charlie, you are so right. I have decided to ignore what any presidential candidate's position is on abortion; it does not matter.

Sure, some unrealistic souls think a clever Republican President that nominates a new U. S. Supreme Court justice can carry the day on Roe v. Wade by appointing a real conservative judge.

Those days are long gone. The nominee will never be approved b

r as America's most influential commentator in 2006. I would not go that far because I think Ann Coulter and Dick Morris are in his league in terms of discernment and thought power. Coulter is the best at identifying political posturing, and Morris is the best at identifying political strategy.

I did not purposely go looking for information on Giuliani or any other politician seeking to become the next President of the United States. I generally cannot stand politics or politicians, but more on that later.

I see Krauthammer on television occasionally and marvel at the conversation. Usually he appears with some other famous pundits on a political show and I watch intently as his fellow companions say little as they drone on about a subject. Then Krauthammer starts speaking, and I immediately realize that this is one smart intellect actually saying something that makes eminent sense.

The difference between Krauthammer and the others is the difference between night and day. I generally always agree with Krauthammer and I always respect and admire his ability to defend his point of view. Krauthammer puts together compound and complex sentences flawlessly and is totally on task.

He does not waste time spinning out political fodder like almost every other commentator does. Most commentators are so busy spewing out the typical Republican or Democratic line of crap that they have nothing to offer that would increase a person's knowledge and understanding.

Krauthammer's piece on Giuliani was interesting to me because he inadvertently reminded me that any politician's position on abortion is irrelevant "because neither presidents nor legislatures nor referendums decide this issue. Judges do."

Amen, Charlie, you are so right. I have decided to ignore what any presidential candidate's position is on abortion; it does not matter.

Sure, some unrealistic souls think a clever Republican President that nominates a new U. S. Supreme Court justice can carry the day on Roe v. Wade by appointing a real conservative judge.

Those days are long gone. The nominee will never be approved b

say little as they drone on about a subject. Then Krauthammer starts speaking, and I immediately realize that this is one smart intellect actually saying something that makes eminent sense.

The difference between Krauthammer and the others is the difference between night and day. I generally always agree with Krauthammer and I always respect and admire his ability to defend his point of view. Krauthammer puts together compound and complex sentences flawlessly and is totally on task.

He does not waste time spinning out political fodder like almost every other commentator does. Most commentators are so busy spewing out the typical Republican or Democratic line of crap that they have nothing to offer that would increase a person's knowledge and understanding.

Krauthammer's piece on Giuliani was interesting to me because he inadvertently reminded me that any politician's position on abortion is irrelevant "because neither presidents nor legislatures nor referendums decide this issue. Judges do."

Amen, Charlie, you are so right. I have decided to ignore what any presidential candidate's position is on abortion; it does not matter.

Sure, some unrealistic souls think a clever Republican President that nominates a new U. S. Supreme Court justice can carry the day on Roe v. Wade by appointing a real conservative judge.

Those days are long gone. The nominee will never be approved b

fer that would increase a person's knowledge and understanding.

Krauthammer's piece on Giuliani was interesting to me because he inadvertently reminded me that any politician's position on abortion is irrelevant "because neither presidents nor legislatures nor referendums decide this issue. Judges do."

Amen, Charlie, you are so right. I have decided to ignore what any presidential candidate's position is on abortion; it does not matter.

Sure, some unrealistic souls think a clever Republican President that nominates a new U. S. Supreme Court justice can carry the day on Roe v. Wade by appointing a real conservative judge.

Those days are long gone. The nominee will never be approved by the United States Senate. Too many conservative judges who are politically appointed do not vote as conservatively as presidents would like. Some judges flip positions, like Chief Justice William Rehnquist did after originally opposing the 1966 Miranda ruling as "legislating from the bench" but upholding it in 2000.

Giuliani's position apparently is that it would be OK to repeal Roe v. Wade and also OK if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, what legal folks like to call stare decisis (Latin), the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.

Krauthammer said "I hope for the day when Roe is overturned" and added that "Abortion is already so contaminated with legalisms, why not turn the issue into one of simple democracy? Let the people decide. Let them work it out the way everything else in this country is worked out—by political argument and legislative accommodation."

I will read anything Krauthammer writes because he is a rarity in our country, a person who actually thinks and can present a case cogently.

(Editor's Note: This ends Part 1 of a 5-Part Series)

Copyright © 2007 Ed Bagley